Last week, an independent review board that oversees the Office of Professional Accountability criticized Chief Gil Kerlikowske for weighing in on an ongoing investigation, among other things. That board is appointed by the council.

On Monday, the new director of the OPA presented a report with nearly opposite findings. Kathryn Olson said the chief’s role was helpful. Olson was appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council.

Here’s what Nickels had to say about why Olson’s review is more credible the OPA’s:

Asked why he trusts Olson more, Nickels noted six times during the 15-minute press conference that Olson is a “professional.”

Olson previously served as a supervising trial lawyer in the Seattle office of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The three-member Review Board includes three lawyers (one is a prosecutor and former police sergent, another is a criminal defense lawyer.)

When a reporter asked Nickels if he sees those credentials as professionally inferior to Olson’s, Nickels noted that they are civilians, saying that reflects a weakness as well as strength for the board.

But twice during the press conference, Nickels lauded the fact that Olson is a civilian as bolstering her credibility.

Nickels also said Olson is inherently credible because she serves an explicit term in office. So do members of the Review Board.

Nickels said the all-volunteer Review Board is driven by a “political agenda.” He initially resisted elaborating. But, when pressed repeatedly by reporters, he said he thinks the Review Board is biased and seeking to “broaden its role” as police watchdog.

By contrast, when asked about the contentions of some OPA critics that its director is inherently biased because she works for the chief and the mayor, Nickels said:

“You know, at some point in the system, you have to have some trust and some confidence that people are trying to do the right thing. If you simply have no confidence that a civilian heading up the Office of Professional Accountability can do an objective job than obviously this isn’t a system that you support or believe can work. I think if you go to that place, there’s nothing we can do to improve the system that would satisfy folks who just have that inherent mistrust. …You have to have some confidence that she and others are trying to an honest and thorough job. And I believe she is.”